Jump to content

1991 Murcian regional election: Revision history


For any version listed below, click on its date to view it. For more help, see Help:Page history and Help:Edit summary. (cur) = difference from current version, (prev) = difference from preceding version, m = minor edit, → = section edit, ← = automatic edit summary

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

29 August 2023

11 August 2023

22 July 2023

15 November 2022

31 July 2022

29 March 2022

28 March 2022

28 January 2022

15 January 2022

8 December 2021

9 November 2021

20 October 2021

19 October 2021

7 March 2021

20 February 2021

18 October 2020

  • curprev 16:3816:38, 18 October 2020Impru20 talk contribsm 38,607 bytes 0 clean up, replaced: font-size:97%; → font-size:95%; (2), width="85"| → width="75"|, width="50"| → width="45"| (2), width="40"| → width="35"| (2), width:820px; → width:790px;, font-size:85%; → font-size:90%;, font-size:98%;" → font-size undo Tag: AWB

12 October 2020

  • curprev 16:0416:04, 12 October 2020Impru20 talk contribsm 38,607 bytes +11 clean up, replaced: |accessdate= → |access-date= (30), |website=historiaelectoral.com |publisher=Electoral History → |website=Historia Electoral.com, =Regional Assembly of Murcia elections since 1983 → =Elecciones a la Asamblea Regional de Mur undo Tag: AWB

17 February 2020

10 December 2019

8 December 2019

7 December 2019

6 December 2019

  • curprev 23:5123:51, 6 December 2019Impru20 talk contribs 24,724 bytes +10 →‎Overall: I meant WP:SYNTH, obviously. Also adding a reference to page 321 which is the one specific to the 1991 election undo
  • curprev 23:4923:49, 6 December 2019Impru20 talk contribs 24,714 bytes +115 →‎Overall: Found the source for this. Be careful, because now I see that the 779,296 is taken from a separate table at page 123 where it says that the source is "own work, based on INE and CREM data". In contrast, results for 1991 are to be found in page 321, where it says they are taken from the BORM (in essence, the same source already listed here under the "ResultsJEC" ref name). For consistency and coherency and so as to avoid WP:SYMTH, I'd say the BORM figure is the one to be trusted undo
  • curprev 23:2923:29, 6 December 2019Impru20 talk contribs 24,599 bytes 0 Undid revision 929606697 by Togiad (talk) And why should it prevail over the one provided by the JEC? The source you removed put it at 777,934. The JEC brings it at 778,256. For the concurrent local elections it was 778,119. It seems that the figure (barring some inaccuracies from sources) is around the 778,000 figure, rather than the 779,296 you bring (which, btw, is not public as the others, so can't be so easily confirmed) undo Tag: Undo
  • curprev 23:2523:25, 6 December 2019Togiad talk contribs 24,599 bytes 0 →‎Overall: The registered-voters number is taken from the "Sierra" reference (page 123) undo
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)